# The Mengel Company v. Nashville Paper Products and Specialty Workers Union, No. 513, an Unincorporated Labor Organization, and John Nelson Cook

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · April 16, 1955 · 221 F.2d 644

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444568

## Case

- **Full name:** The MENGEL COMPANY, Appellant, v. NASHVILLE PAPER PRODUCTS AND SPECIALTY WORKERS UNION, NO. 513, an Unincorporated Labor Organization, and John Nelson Cook, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 16, 1955
- **Citations:** 221 F.2d 644; 36 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2028; 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4505
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stewart
- **Judges:** McALLISTER, Miller, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444568

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, if the pertinent documents are “inconsistent with the allegations of the complaint, the exhibit controls.”

## Opinion text

STEWART, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this action.
In American Federation of Labor v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 6 Cir., 1950, 119 F.2d 535, 538 , this court held that ar action for a declaratory judgment brought by the union for a declaration of its rights under a pension plan covered by a collective bargaining agreement “clearly states a cause of action of which the United States District Court has jurisdiction.” In that case this court said “The action is one for violation of contract between appellant and appellee within the express provisions of section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947; and section 400 of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act vests in the federal court the right to grant the character of relief prayed, if appellant proves the allegations of its complaint.” 179 F.2d at page 538.
In Milk and Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy Emp. Union, Local No. 98 v. Gillespie Milk Prod. Corp., 1953, 203 F.2d 650, 651 , this court held that the union’s suit to enjoin the corporation from violating a collective bargaining agreement by refusing to abide by and give effect to an arbitration award was properly brought in the federal district court under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act.
The Western Union case thus makes clear that a suit for a declaratory judgment may nonetheless be one for violation of a contract within the provisions of § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. In the Gillespie case this court expressly rejected the contention “that the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201 , 2202, does not authorize [the district] court to interpret a labor contract and issue an injunction to enforce it under section 301(a) of the Taft Hartley Act * * «•»
If the appellant in the present ease had chosen to disregard the purported arbitration award and had awaited the bringing of suit against it by the union for enforcement of the award, there thus appeal's no question but that the district court would have had jurisdiction of that action. Milk and Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy Emp. Union, Local No. 98 v. Gillespie Milk Prod. Corp., supra. The appellant chose instead to litigate the same question as plaintiff. That choice should be of no consequences in determining the question of jurisdiction; if a federal court has jurisdiction of a controversy it should matter not which of the parties initiates the litigation. The very purpose of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, as I understand it, is to enable one in appellant’s position to seek a clarification of its rights in a controversy such as this.
*649 The question to be decided was whether a collective bargaining agreement was violated. There was a real controversy between the parties on that question. It seems to me clear that the district court had jurisdiction to decide it under the provisions of § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. 1
It is not possible to tell whether the district court decided this case on the question of jurisdiction or on the merits. I would, therefore, remand the case to the district court for a decision on the merits.
. No Constitutional questions were raised by (he parties, and none is here considered. Cf. Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 75 S.Ct. 488 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444568. Public record. Not legal advice.